Thursday, August 30th 2018

Crucial Announces New BX500 Series of Entry Level SSDs

by
Raevenlord
 Discuss (37 Comments)
Crucial has become one of the biggest players in the consumer SSD market due to their excellent price/capacity/performance ratios (their SSDs consistently score highly in our own resident wizard's reviews for some reason, after all). Now, the company is looking to lower price/GB even more as it launches the BX500 series to the market - available in capacities of 120 GB, 240 GB and 480 GB using Micron 3D NAND chips.

Yes, it's a SATA III SSD. And yes, the SATA III connector really is a limiting factor in this SSD's performance - but remember that SATA III controllers are much less costly than NVMe implementations. Sequential performance is rated for up to 540MB/s read and 500MB/s write (4K performance is sadly absent). The whole plethora of usual SSD technologies are here as well - multi-step data integrity algorithm, thermal monitoring, SLC write acceleration, active garbage collection, TRIM support, self-monitoring and reporting technology (SMART) and error correction code (ECC)... For the pricing, these are likely of the DRAM-less variety of SSDs, which means SLC caching is of utmost importance for performance. But pricing really is some of the lowest ever - Crucial is quoting $29.99 for the 120 GB model, $49.99 for the 240 GB one and $89.99 for 480 GB worth of BX500 storage. Crucial will start shipping out orders on August 31st.
Sources: Crucial BX500 Manual, Crucial BX500 Landing Page, via Tom's Hardware

Related News

Add your own comment

37 Comments on Crucial Announces New BX500 Series of Entry Level SSDs

#26
StrayKAT
Using 250 for a system drive myself.. but I sometimes use the extra space for extra games I plan on playing repeatedly (but keep a separate large HDD for most games). If I could get a 10TB SSD, I wouldn't do this :D
Posted on Reply
#27
Tsukiyomi91
also have a 250GB SSD as boot drive & another 240GB SSD for a few games. You don't need a large SSD unless you have the moolah to spend on a good 1TB SSD that doesn't break on you. dun wanna listen to some dude who says 120 & 240GB SSD that are deemed as "useless" when the user base of such capacity is much more bigger than you think, while us who can afford 500GB or higher only contributed a small percentage.
Posted on Reply
#28
DeathtoGnomes
Prima.VeraI never really understood why you need more than 100GB for a System drive anyways.
I have a Samsung 830 EVO 60GB drive used for the System drive and it's only half full. And yes, I have Win 10 Pro x64, Office 2016, iTunes, and a lot of other software installed. In all honestly, even 120GB for a System drive it's a waste.
from my perspective as a gamer (mostly now) there are plenty of games that have hit the 5gb install sizes, I play 3 games totaling close to 25 GB, including mods, my current 7 days to die mods folder is 10.5GB and currently have only 1 mod installed, playtesting I've had up to 5 mods thats almost 50 GB used up. Gaming should warrant its own drive but I havent seen the need yet to do that when I still have room on C:\
Posted on Reply
#29
StrayKAT
DeathtoGnomesfrom my perspective as a gamer (mostly now) there are plenty of games that have hit the 5gb install sizes, I play 3 games totaling close to 25 GB, including mods, my current 7 days to die mods folder is 10.5GB and currently have only 1 mod installed, playtesting I've had up to 5 mods thats almost 50 GB used up. Gaming should warrant its own drive but I havent seen the need yet to do that when I still have room on C:\
That would actually be the majority of my games. Very few are 2GB or less nowadays. Hell, even a "light" looking game like Cuphead is 10GB.
Posted on Reply
#30
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
Prima.VeraI never really understood why you need more than 100GB for a System drive anyways.
I have a Samsung 830 EVO 60GB drive used for the System drive and it's only half full. And yes, I have Win 10 Pro x64, Office 2016, iTunes, and a lot of other software installed. In all honestly, even 120GB for a System drive it's a waste.
StrayKATUsing 250 for a system drive myself.. but I sometimes use the extra space for extra games I plan on playing repeatedly (but keep a separate large HDD for most games). If I could get a 10TB SSD, I wouldn't do this :D
My C drive currently uses 88GB, and was using almost 120GB before I recently did a cleanup. And most of that space is just Windows and program files. And I don't think I have anything extreme installed, I think the biggest thing I have installed is the Adobe suite. There are no games installed on my system drive. The user files are just my account, no one else uses the computer. Also it has non of my pictures or movies or anything like that, all of those are stored on the 3TB drive in my system. In fact 10GB of that 13GB is all in the appdata folder(no I don't use Outlook). I also have hibernation disabled, saving another 32GB of space, granted that amount of saved space is going to be a lot lower on most people's systems.

It is very easy for a normal user that just has a single drive(like in a laptop) to use up a 120GB drive, especially if they are saving things like their pictures to the drives. This is why today I won't put less than 240GB in a system as a system drive, and the cost difference is only 50% more for 100% more space, $45 for a 240GB SSD makes sense to me.

Posted on Reply
#31
coonbro
pricing is looking better , but a 59 buck ssd went to 90/110 bucks and now just back to what they were before [and were mlc drives not tlc too boot ]

still any lower pricing don't hurt
Posted on Reply
#32
StrayKAT
I'll just put this deal here in case anyone is interested. Not BX500, but I'm very tempted to get an MX500 on newegg atm.. 1TB M.2 for $200

www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820156178

It's much slower than what I have.. but much larger. Decisions...

edit: Apparently these m.2's aren't much faster than SATA. :\
Posted on Reply
#33
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
StrayKATedit: Apparently these m.2's aren't much faster than SATA. :\
They aren't any faster than SATA, because they are SATA.
Posted on Reply
#34
StrayKAT
newtekie1They aren't any faster than SATA, because they are SATA.
Ah good to know. To be honest, I don't understand how they literally "are" SATA, but I'll take your word for it. :D
Posted on Reply
#35
Fourstaff
StrayKATAh good to know. To be honest, I don't understand how they literally "are" SATA, but I'll take your word for it. :D
M.2 supports either PCIe 3, SATA 3 or USB 3 depending on what the manufacturers choose to use. In the case of MX500s, Crucial uses the SATA 3 interface.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M.2
Posted on Reply
#36
StrayKAT
FourstaffM.2 supports either PCIe 3, SATA 3 or USB 3 depending on what the manufacturers choose to use. In the case of MX500s, Crucial uses the SATA 3 interface.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M.2
I feel stupid for not knowing that now.

I guess this isn't good a deal as I thought.
Posted on Reply
#37
mihailc
rtwjunkieIf they are close to the same price get the MX500 all day long.
Already did, month ago. Thank you very much! :)
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Apr 26th, 2024 19:55 EDT change timezone

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts